Article Response to Magog’s Gender Biology

Preface: I support trans-people and trans rights. I’m only disproving an argument put forth. I don’t care what you choose to live as. In my personal opinion, speaking as someone who’s code blued three times on three separate occasions, think that whatever changes to your life you feel you have to make in order to be happy; you should make in a deliberate but carefully thought out way. Some life changing alterations are permanent and should therefore be made with deliberate thought, foresight and careful consideration with the aid of well educated and experienced professional council.

Life can be very short, again: I’ve technically been dead three times. Life can be very short, far too short not to try to be happy. So whatever changes to your life you feel you need to make in order to enhance the quality of your life: do it. If that means transitioning, go for it. However, again, do so properly with professional council and adhere to the process currently insisted upon by the medical community. Once parts and pieces begin being removed: there is no going back. A lot of trans people commit suicide years after the transition because they realize they’ve made a mistake and they cannot get back what was taken.

I want for other people to have joyful, happy and fulfilling lives. As such, what choices you make: I advise caution and deliberate, intense, prolonged consideration before coming to and making permanent or irreversible decisions. That all being said, I actually don’t have a problem with gays, lesbians, transmen, transwomen, etc. etc. I just can’t be bothered to give enough of a fuck to care one way or the other. If it makes you happy and enhances the quality of your life, go for it.

Also, I would totally bang Theryn Meyer. I can’t not love Theryn, she’s a truly wonderful person, inherently humane: but I’d so fucking wreck her. Good god, she’d have to sit on one of those doughnut pillows for weeks. Don’t get me wrong, I think Blaire White’s gorgeous too, but I love Theryn, she’s a fantastic person.

Anyway, on with the show.

“The gender binary is a myth, it’s untrue.”

According to the The Encyclopedia of Genetic Disorders and Birth Defects By James Wynbrandt, Mark D. Ludman (1991), Hermaphroditic or Intersex births, meaning some combination of internal and external genitalia other than gender binary male or gender binary male occur approximately 1 in every 50,000 births. These individuals represent a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction of a fraction of a percentile. Currently we’re at somewhere between 7.4 to 7.6 billion people on the planet Earth but a bigger number generates more for the purpose of being generous, that in mind let’s use 8 billion.

8 billion / 50k = 160,000 people kicking around the planet who either are still Hermaphroditic as a result of not having access to corrective surgery or people who were born hermaphroditic and underwent corrective surgery. Of 8 billion living homosapien sapiens, which is more than we currently have: only 160,000 of them would have been born Intersexed or Hermaphroditic.

Since these people represent, again, a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction of a fraction of a percentile of the population but the 7,999,840,000 other humans roaming about were in fact born into the gender binary: gender binary is the norm by a 50,000 to 1 margin. So yes, gender binary is a verifiable reality, not a myth and it is true. Your ideology, like so many other religions, demands that you ignore reality and apply a suspension of disbelief in order to accept it as being true, on faith.

“There’s no evidence you can provide to prove it.”

Yes, actually, I can, and I just did. It didn’t take much effort.

“And therefore your claims of logic based around the gender binary can’t be proven or true because you haven’t proven the initial aspects of your argument.”

Again, just did: you’re making a circular argument to support your leap of faith suspension of disbelief which disregards verifiable reality.

Also, when dealing with reality, as the hard sciences do, arguments become relatively meaningless. A mathematical formula is not an argument, a molecular structure is not an argument, a chemical process is not an argument. When dealing with biology: you’re dealing with a hard science.

If you predict that P will perform Q in circumstances N: it either does or it does not because your prediction was either correct or it was not. You cannot argue that your prediction P would perform Q in circumstances N should still be considered correct if in fact the prediction did not come to fruition – your prediction was simply wrong. Argument in such a case means absolutely nothing unless you are arguing over WHY the prediction failed, which can lead to further refinement of the prediction and experimentation.

“The idea that gender is related to sex is unprovable because you can’t prove that genitalia determines gender.”

You’re operating on a false premise which is based on the idea that sex and gender are two different things. The word Gender in and of itself was a product of polite society. Saying “gender” instead of sex was a way to stipulate “innie” or “outie” in a time period in which language was segmented to avoid saying certain terms in mixed company as it was considered vulgar or impolite.

Asking for “white” or “dark” meat was a way to stipulate breast or thigh without saying “breast” or “thigh” because such a verbal gaff would be considered a breach in manners. Ideologues of your stripe have since hijacked the word “gender” and misappropriated it’s meaning in order to differentiate gender from sex. The original etymological meaning of the word “gender” was simply a polite way of referring to someone’s sex. Shakespeare, for example, often employed the word “sex” instead, as an intentional faux pas and racy innuendo, especially shocking in it’s day as it was usually his female characters who said it.

So between sex and gender: you are literally arguing over a differentiation which never existed previous to your ideology. Sex and gender are the same thing: you are attempting to hijack linguistics and rewrite the word to mean something different than it ever has before. You’re essentially insisting that “People of Color” is completely unrelated from saying “colored people.” No, it isn’t, it’s identical, it means non-white.

“There’s more than two pairings of chromosomes.”

Yes there are, and they crop up once every fifty thousand births.

“Again there’s no actual proof that gender is related to chromosomes.”

Even if we are to accept your previously diagnosed broken premise that gender and sex are two different things: according to the Williams Institute, part of the UCLA Law School, only %0.06 of American adults identify as transgender. Which leaves 99.4% of people born in the United States “identifying” their “gender” as the physical sex they were born as. So yes, quantified, verified proof gender is related to chromosomes, signed, sealed and delivered.

“you have no actual proof beyond your own transphobia.”

Aside from reality.

“and thus you have no actual element of logic to deny the existence of non-binary people.”

Aside from reality. Look in your pants, you were born with sausage and potatoes, not clam. The argument that someone is “non-binary” is not based on physical reality, but on “feelings”. Said person doesn’t “feel” like they’re male or female. Feelings are subjective emotions, not physical realities. Again, and as with any other religion, your position is that you believe in something which has no physical reality because you feel what you believe is true. If you believe yourself to be neither male or female in spite of the physical reality of what genitals you were born with – you’re essentially believing in a talking snake in spite of the fact that you know snakes do not talk.

“Thus a transwoman is a woman because you can’t define anything that would make her not a woman as proof of what’s true.”

Aside from “her” having male genitals instead of female genitals, “her” being incapable of reproducing in a way which females do, “her” having to inject “herself” with artificial hormones in order to retain female attributes and aspects and “her” reverting back to a masculine “he” if “she” ever stops taking those artificial chemicals. You can surgically modify a mole to look like a shrew: it’s still a mole.

“And realize we’re moving towards a world that is a more normal one.”

The fact that Intersexed or hermaphroditic births represent only 1 in 50,000 children born and 99.4% of all adults in the United States identify with the sex they were born as shows that neither hermaphroditic intersex births or transgenders are “normal”. The word “normal” refers to that which is most common. That which is uncommon is by definition of NOT being common, abnormal.

“Ultimately we need to move past the gender binary because like I said there’s no proof for it.”

Aside from reality.

“and realize that these people who claim to be non-binary aren’t lying.”

Yes, people with schizophrenia aren’t lying when they claim they’re Napoleon or Abraham Lincoln, that is what they believe. Reality proves otherwise: but they firmly, honestly, believe they are in fact Napoleon or Abraham Lincoln.

Just because they believe these things to be true, doesn’t make it true, it just means they believe it’s true. A person can honestly lie if they actually believe what they are saying is true. People used to believe that the sun revolved around the Earth, it was called the geocentric model, after the Copernican revolution it became known that it is the Earth which revolves around the sun, known as the heliocentric model.

Those people believed in what they were saying, but it wasn’t physically true in reality: it’s simply what they believed to be true. This is why the hard sciences use evidence and verification, not subjective emotions, opinions or feelings.

“and consequently we shouldn’t be continually denying their existence.”

No one’s denying that people who think they’re non-binary exist, we know they exist: we’re denying the thing they think they are because reality proves they are not the thing they think they are. We know there exist schizophrenics who think that they’re Napoleon Bonaparte, we’re not denying they exist: we’re denying that they’re actually Napoleon Bonaparte because they’re not.

“On twitter you see these people just going on and on that gender is sex gender is chromosomes.”

Because it is, you’re playing a word game built on a false premise to support your ideology.

“there aren’t any studies which back up what they’re saying”

Oh really? Just did.

“People link articles saying these are chromosomes and there’ll be nothing there.”

Yes, again, the hard sciences deal in evidence, verification, proof and fact: not word games. As stated previously “when dealing with reality, as the hard sciences do, arguments become relatively meaningless. A mathematical formula is not an argument, a molecular structure is not an argument, a chemical process is not an argument. When dealing with biology: you’re dealing with a hard science.

If you predict that P will perform Q in circumstances N: it either does or it does not because your prediction was either correct or it was not. You cannot argue that your prediction P would perform Q in circumstances N should still be considered correct if in fact the prediction did not come to fruition – your prediction was simply wrong. Argument in such a case means absolutely nothing unless you are arguing over WHY the prediction failed, which can lead to further refinement of the prediction and experimentation.”

“Other people who try to argue against the non-binary line of argument don’t seem to have any real systems”

Yes, again, the hard sciences deal in evidence, verification, proof and fact: not word games. As stated previously “when dealing with reality, as the hard sciences do, arguments become relatively meaningless. A mathematical formula is not an argument, a molecular structure is not an argument, a chemical process is not an argument. When dealing with biology: you’re dealing with a hard science.

If you predict that P will perform Q in circumstances N: it either does or it does not because your prediction was either correct or it was not. You cannot argue that your prediction P would perform Q in circumstances N should still be considered correct if in fact the prediction did not come to fruition – your prediction was simply wrong. Argument in such a case means absolutely nothing unless you are arguing over WHY the prediction failed, which can lead to further refinement of the prediction and experimentation.”

“‘where’s your proof for non-binaries’ and you’ve missed a point”

No, they’ve exposed the fact that you subscribe to a secular religion which focuses on beliefs, feelings and word games which take place in circular arguments to “prove” the existence of that which does not exist. Going back to the schizophrenic comparison: the dragon in the corner exists because you perceive it even if 99.4% of people don’t perceive your dragon.

“you haven’t proved your initial statement, you need to back up your logic.”

It’s called reality. 99.4% of people “identify” as the sex they were born as and only 1 in 50,000 births have any set of genitals other than male or female. The reality of gender binary is quite well established by physical reality: as is posed to all all religions – it is your responsibility to prove the existence of your God.

“These are real people.”

Yes, they are real people. The schizophrenic who believes himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte is a real person, he just isn’t Napoleon Bonaparte.

“different genders than what has been used to for the majority of human history.”

Yes, if Male and Female has been the norm for most of human history, than anything other than male or female is therefore by definition, not normal. Revert back to the discussion on how “normal” is defined. Also, since these people are not intersexed, they were born with perfectly normal genitals, but insist emotionally and mentally that they believe themselves to be something other than what they were born. A state of mind for which there is no physical evidence: this is referred to as a mental condition. A schizophrenic believing himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte, does not make him Napoleon Bonaparte.

“It’s time to accept there are non-binaries.”

We accept that such people exist, we know there exist schizophrenics who think that they’re Napoleon Bonaparte, we’re not denying they exist: we’re denying that they’re actually Napoleon Bonaparte because they’re not.

“It’s time to put the gender binary to bed.”

You mean the thing that 99.4% of people are? If 99.4% of people can’t see the dragon you claim is crouching in the corner crocheting a pussy hat: they’re all wrong for not seeing said dragon. Right, gotcha. Or perhaps…. if you were claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old and 99.4% of people, along with physical sciences which prove this to be untrue – would you be calling these people “sinners” or “heretics” ? Again, your ideology, like so many other religions, demands that you ignore reality and apply a suspension of disbelief in order to accept it as being true, on faith.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Published by

Observing Libertarian

I am a Humanist small L libertarian Deontological Minarchist. In that order - As a result of this philosophy: I cannot in good conscience condone the actions of any group, movement or organization which seeks to oppress another individuals human rights. By education I have an Associates of Occupational Studies in Gunsmithing, and am qualified to testify in Open Court on the State's behalf as a Firearms expert. I am also an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor. I am currently in the Process of writing two books on Philosophy
View all posts by Observing Libertarian